nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:State Elections, 2011
As we had no real candidates, I suggest all candidates simply make up their deputy and opponents. --Semyon 21:55, January 20, 2012 (UTC) I say nullify this: there weren't enough damn votes. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:56, January 20, 2012 (UTC) Better IMO to have some people in the positions than no-one at all, IMO. --Semyon 21:57, January 20, 2012 (UTC) Not enough? Well its true overall but I got the required minimum to become governor. So we should just leave it as is (or do what Semyon says). HORTON11: • TBH the position is hardly of importance. I wouldn't really care, except that I quite like being able to say I'm the governor of Seven. :P --Semyon 22:03, January 20, 2012 (UTC) That's the only reason, really. I get to appear on the list as being a governor. HORTON11: • 22:06, January 20, 2012 (UTC) This isn't according to rules. We could say they never happened Pierlot McCrooke 17:38, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :And we could say they did. There's no difference, so let's keep it for fun's sake. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:51, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :I weakly agree but I want consensus first. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:52, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Federal powers? That would've led to exactly the same as in 2008.. Best would be to keep the elected governors in place. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:55, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::The problem is that these governors aren't elected legitimately. Elections were held but never finished. And anyway 2008 won't happen again.. We have a better political system now Pierlot McCrooke 17:59, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::The political system's hardly changed. Instead, the reverse could be said. With hardly any state power, separatists have a very hard time in Lovia now :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:01, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::Actuslly I think ::::::Actuslly you think what? Anyway, I'm gonna agree with McCrooke here (I know right, what are the odds?!), cuz' don't really think these elections are legitimate either. They weren't ended properly and that kinda takes away their legitimacy, if ya ask me. Marcaline 18:20, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Not at all. The law doesn't even state that elections have to be closed (http://nation.wikia.com/wiki/Constitution#Article_8). According to the constitution, they are simply closed after two weeks. So, if you call these elections illegitimate while allowing Wabba I to run and Daembrales to vote? I'd call that hypocrite :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:24, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::In case the running of Wabba and the voting of Daembareles were illegal we have to redo elections Pierlot McCrooke 18:26, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::No, because you'll get exactly the same results in a re-run as Daembrales can vote now and Wabba can be a candidate now... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:28, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::yes but currently it is implementeed in a illegal way Pierlot McCrooke 18:30, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::Nobody cares. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:31, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::Yes but why would we then have a law~? Pierlot McCrooke 18:33, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::::To make our country look fancy :P No, if I knew Wabba was going to join post-candidacy period I would've protested, but I only found out yesterday :P Next elections, we'll get back to the law. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:35, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::::I suggest we at least remove little JHonny from congre~ss Pierlot McCrooke 18:37, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::::::I suggest we leave your suggestion aside :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:38, January 22, 2012 (UTC) Reform again I think we need to make shit up, sorry for that kinda vulgurness but this issue pisses me off. I think we should make up stuff for the states to show there activeness. Here's a proposed bill: *A Person runs for office in there state **Example (Labour candiate vs. CCPL candidate vs. PL Candidate) *The winner (most votes) gets the governorship and fake other character just for that role **Example (Labour Candidate 4 votes vs. CCPL candidate 5 votes (wins) vs. PL candidate One vote) *The votes added up and the percentage is how much seats that party gets in the state assembly now created, these assemblies could have from 10 - 20 seats so lets say it's 20 seats **Example (Labour 8 seats CCPL 10 seats PL 2 seats) *Those parties (or three people) would work together and building up the states, passing laws (like states sales tax, roads, state regulation, and other small things. I like this and this is apart of labour's plan for a better future first we will have to *Create tax law and pass a budget *Repeal Dumb old state laws which prohibit them from doing anything. *Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:46, January 22, 2012 (UTC) *:The assembly thing is good for the next elections. But note that the state laws have been abolished about two years ago in an agreement between Dimitri and me (the states remained under the condition that they became practically powerless). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:50, January 22, 2012 (UTC) @Marcus:That only works when we have 30+ users. Anyway we should first make creating and running businesses more interestig instead of just writing their articles .Pierlot McCrooke 17:52, January 22, 2012 (UTC) Let's have an alternative vote system. Rank your candidates according to how much you like them, and then eliminate until someone has a majority. I don't care for state laws though, until there is someone besides Congress to keep the governors in place. A state council still might work, though. You need to elaborate on what the non-winners do. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:52, January 22, 2012 (UTC) @pierlot - no it would take at max 15 people. Not thirty. 3 per each state. I would repeal the abolished laws (if that made sense) and put ones in place so states can grow and make citiens happier @TM - well it's kinda like the system now, everyone wins. If you get 1 vote, in porportion to seats and precentage to the votes in total you could have from 1 to 3 seats, you just wouldn't control the governor's position. And the governor would, like the PM, have very limited power. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:58, January 22, 2012 (UTC) 2012 State Elections Aren't nominations supposed to start on August 10? We should get on that. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:36, August 17, 2012 (UTC) :I thought that they were later than that, actually. The dates 'are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.' (Constitution) --Semyon 07:50, August 17, 2012 (UTC) ::Looks like campaigning time is there again :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:55, August 17, 2012 (UTC) ::Okay. I thought Inauguration was October 1st, but I guess that's wrong. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:28, August 21, 2012 (UTC)